Thursday, 25 February 2016

Does WSJ's Mr Anonymous really exist?

1.
Yet again the Wall Street Journal presented a biased, one-sided
view of Malaysia and the Prime Minister yesterday. Their attacks are
fuelled by many anonymous sources, who may even not exist, and their
reliance on information from the Anti-Najib Campaign who are using the
WSJ as a vehicle.

2. The latest article raises old
allegations about Swiss investigations into supposedly 1MDB-linked
companies, but then fails to even mention the fact that the Swiss
Attorney General has made it clear that the Prime Minister is not
involved in any way.

3. They then claim that “A Saudi
official said the nation’s finance and foreign ministries had no
knowledge of the donation and that such a transfer into the personal
bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented” – completely
ignoring the fact that the Saudi Foreign Minister has said that the
funds did come from his country!

4. Why does the WSJ ignore
these key details, which would be vital to any impartial reporting on
this story? Because they are not interested in being impartial. They are
fully committed – either by being duped, or because of their own agenda
– to running down Malaysia and its democratically elected government.

5.
And who exactly are the WSJ relying on for their info? They claim
to have heard from “one cabinet member”, “a Saudi official”, and an
interim version of the Auditor General’s report “from last year” which
they claim was leaked to them. Where is the proof for any of this? How
do we know that any of these people exist? How do we know that the
report is genuine and not fake?

6. Here is what Margaret
Sullivan, the New York Times editor responsible for standards, said
about it: “Anonymity is a last resort. Editors have a role here…in
drawing a hard line by not allowing material from unidentified sources,
particularly quotations, to be published. Readers are right to protest
when they see anonymity granted gratuitously.”

7. Apart from
the DAP’s Tony Pua, everyone quoted in the WSJ article is anonymous.
This anonymous sourcing is journalism at its worst. So why are the WSJ
editors allowing it? Nothing happens by chance at a paper like the WSJ.

8. Malaysians must not be misled by propaganda, lies and smears masquerading as news.

9.
The real story about Malaysia is different – we are doing well,
despite the global economic headwinds. The Prime Minister has a plan,
and it’s working. For example, the International Monetary Fund recently
praised the government for keeping the country safe by maintaining
stability, and saying that “Malaysia’s economy continues to perform
well”. And just yesterday Fitch re-affirmed Malaysia at 'A-' with stable
outlook.

10. Why was there no mention of this in the WSJ’s
latest article? The truth is just too inconvenient for the WSJ. Their
anti-Malaysia agenda is becoming clearer every day.